While I hope and pray that the people on this site don't boil everything down to Calvinism and Arminianism, I wanted to point out a couple of things here. I happen to adore C.H. Spurgeon and Paris Reidhead. These two men said some things regarding these subjects that I find wonderful:

Spurgeon:

Wow, wonderful.

and

Reidhead:

You see these were two men that didn't create the disparity we see today between the Calvinistic and Arminian camps. Both saw what John Wesley was, a man of God. Plain and simple.

I myself am not limited by either, but as Spurgeon quoted:

This is what I am, and since this is what I am, I will not be labeled a Calvinist or Arminian.

I defend Gods Word, not mans labels.

Love in Christ,

Jim

I think as professing Christians our time would be better spent witnessing to the multitudes of lost rather than butchering other like believers. I don't pick Arminians apart, until......they base their salvation on 'accepting Jesus into my heart'....I do have trouble with that cliche. When one truly gets a glimpse (from God) of His Holiness, Justice and Majesty, and truly sees himself as the vile, filthy, wretched sinner that he is, then I don't think 'accepting Jesus into my heart' cuts the mustard, but a heartfelt pleading for Mercy from God, would do. I have come to see that most of the time it is a cliche that has been taught, and people do not realize that they are boasting of what they did ( "I" accepted) rather than concentrating on what Jesus has done, and as usual, some are truly saved ( you can see it in their life, and walk) and some are not.
Pilgrim313

Amen to that.

Sister, I can understand where you are coming from. the term "accepting Jesus into their heart" can be a relatively meaningless term, especially in the circles today from which it is invoked.

However, looking at the actual words, what do we see that they mean? Are they truly bad if said with a repentant heart? I know I posted some things on this subject on another thread, but have some more to think on this.

Thinking on those words and the following verse, what do we say to this?

One must admit, that this verse must refer to the fact that a person must somehow respond, especially with the word "if".

Does that mean man has a "free-will"? Not really. I think what the biggest issue is, is the fact that many people disagree with simply a different viewpoint on the same conclusion. I really honestly do not see the difference except in wording in most applications.

Even though the term "accepting Jesus into my heart" is invoked so loosely in today's church, I think it more of the lack of power and desensitization of it.

Can both Calvinists and Arminians agree that somehow, some way, there must be a response by the individual that the Father is drawing? Must that person respond somehow? Or will as some hyper-calvinists believe, drag that person in identification with salvation? No, I do not agree with that. I thin we are encroaching upon the claim that we know the will of God by some of our hyper-calvinistic views. Do I believe in the fact that some people are created for a sole purpose to go to eternal damnation for the cause of fulfilling God's will? I would say so. To not believe this, would also encroach on upon the claim that a man knows the will of God.

God has the indeterminable will and right to do as He chooses with no respect of persons. That very thought ought to give us a striking reverence for His eternal sovereignty and Godhead. Does God choose to work this will on every individual? No, that is not consistent with the truth of grace.

No matter if a person wants to use the term "predestination", or "free-will" will affect the truth of salvation in the end. If we can truly saturate our hearts with the respect of deity and fear of God, then can we enter the fulness therein. This is our duty and truth.

A man, as Paris Reidhead said, should be willing to go down to the cross, into the tomb and up again, because that is the only way that God can glory out of a human being.

Just my thoughts,

Love in Christ,

Jim

Hola Jim, I understand where your going and think it is a good thought, but the verse your drawing upon is to the church....ie saved Rev 3:20

Salvation by Grace is so easy, a 5yr old child can comprehend it and have it applied; yet the Mercy required is so deep many a hardened sinner cannot grasp or reach the reality of it all to be saved.
The reality and depth of Salvation; that a Holy Creator would die that His sin laden Creation world live...is beyond my understanding, and reason, but not my gratitude. It is in this gratitude we ought to live our lives....

Mat 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.


Rev3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

What we do now
http://www.casadeluzparalosninos.blogspot.com

Aah brother, I was thinking about that when using that as a reference. Yes, I know it referring to the churches, but i was trying to use it as a reference to the fact that the Lord does not always use willful exertion over man's will in all cases.

Sorry about that, I should have clarified myself better. thank you for pointing that out.

Jim

Amen to that! When I come across someone who tells me they are saved because on such and such a date they took Jesus into their heart the first thing I do is set about going through the Romans Road with them in an attempt to determine if they really are aware of what Salvation is all about. Salvation entails a great deal more than taking Jesus into our hearts. Granted it is an integral part of the whole thing but not the final step or the only step.

In Christ,
George

This post was last modified: Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:04 PM by George.

And I will say Amen to that!

I came across the following in my latest reading “God and Evil the Problem Solved” Gordon Clark, and thought it may add some ‘thinking’ material to the Free Will discussion:


“In theological literature, free agency (what a Calvinist attests to)- or natural liberty- means that the will is not determined by physical or physiological factors. But Free Agency is NOT Free Will. Free will means that there is no determining factor operating on the will, not even God. Free will means that either of two incompatible actions re equally possible. Free agency goes with the view that all choices are inevitable. The liberty that the Westminster Confession ascribes to the will is a liberty from compulsion, coactions, or force of inanimate objects; it is not a liberty from the power of God.

Perhaps the matter can be made clearer by stating in other words precisely what the question is. The question is, Is the will free? The question is Not, Is there a will? Calvinism most assuredly holds that Judas acted voluntarily. He chose to betray Christ. He did so willingly. No question is raised as to whether or not he had a will. What the Calvinist asks is whether that will was free. Are the factors or powers that determine a person’s choice, or is the choice causeless? Could Judas have chosen otherwise? Not, could he have done otherwise, had he chosen; but, could he have chosen in opposition to God’s foreordination? Acts 4:28 indicates the he could not. The Arminians frequently talk as if the will and free will were synonyms. Then when Calvinism denies free will, they charge that men are reduced to puppets. Puppets, of course, are inanimate dolls mechanically controlled by strings. If the opponents had only read the Puritans, if they only had known what Calvinism is, they could have spared themselves the onus of making this blunder.

Choice and necessity are therefore not incompatible. Instead of pre-judging the question by confusing choice with free choice, one should give an explicit definition of choice. The adjective could be justified only afterward, if at al. Choice then may be defined, at least sufficiently for the present purpose, as a mental act that consciously initiates and determines a further action. The ability to have chosen otherwise is an irrelevant matter and has no place in the definition. Such an ability could only be argued after the definition has been made. We cannot permit the Arminians to settle the whole matter simply by selecting a definition. A choice is still a deliberate volition even if it could not have been different.

In fact, it is not possible to know that it could have been different, for we are unconscious of our limitations. The opponents frequently rest their case for free will on their own consciousness of freedom. It seems immediately and introspectively clear to them that their choices are uncaused. But such a view assumes that they would be conscious of causality, if there were any. To see that this is not the case, one may try to specify the conditions under which a man could know that he had a free will.

We observe in children and sometimes in adults atypical form of conduct that we ascribe to fatigue (the child is fussy because he had missed his nap) or to nervous strain (the adult blows his top or takes to alcohol. The individuals in question are acting voluntarily and may well believe that their choices are uncaused. We know better. We know what the causes are, and we know that they do not recognize them. Although it is easy to see this in the case of other people, there is a tendency to overlook the fact that the same is true of ourselves. We usually assume that nothing is affecting our own will, just because we are not conscious of the causality. But how could we be sure that there is no cause? What conditions would have to be met before we could know that nothing is determining our choices? Not only would we have to eliminate the possibility of fatigue and nervous strain, but we would have to eliminate other factors that are neither so easily examined after we think of them nor so easily thought of in the first place. There are minute physiological conditions beyond our usual or possible range of attention. Some incipient disease may be affecting our minds. There are also external meteorological factors, for admittedly unpleasant weather is depressing. And can we be sure that a sun spot, whose existence we do not suspect, leaves us unaffected? Even though the will is not mechanically determined, these external conditions as well as our physiology seem to alter our conduct to some extent. More important than physiology and astronomy is psychology. May there not be some subconscious jealousy that motivates our reactions to other people? Why do we eat chocolate sundaes when we know that we should reduce? Are we free from the influence of parental training? The Scriptures say, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” Parental training and all education proceed on the assumption that the will is not free, but can be trained, motivated, and directed. Finally, beyond bother physiology and psychology there is God. Can we be sure that He is not directing our choices? Dow we know that we are free from His grace? The Psalm says, “Blessed is the man whom you choose and cause to approach you.” Is it certain that God has not caused us to choose to approach him? Can we set a limit to God’ power? Can we tell how far it extends and just where it ends? Are we outside His control?”

Hopefully this will be food for thought.
Pilgrim313

Praise the Lord.
It has been awhile since I have heard conversations as such.
My husband and I and our family have recently went back to his home church and we have been under some excellent teaching. I have been able to study the scriptures to have a better understanding on arminism and calvinsm. I now realize that I do not hold to either 100%. Gods word is my final authority.